Ex-White House official testifies he wasn't concerned 'anything illegal was discussed'

No it's not.

 

let entertain this for a minute, if it were true, should he of lost his job as VP and not be allowed to be hired to be President

then ask yourself if what Trump did is true, should he lose his job as President

that said, Trump lies, just like with birtherism, this is more fake news Trump is just making up

 

The President is granted many discretions. It's an inherent part of the job.

So yeah. People are trying to make presidential authority appear illegal because TRUMP!.

 

do me a favor, IE Quid Pro quo

that said, seems there was more details in the actual call of a Quid Pro quo, but the Trump staff removed them, we need to see the actual call transcript as well, Trump should release it

 

using a foreign government to go after your political rival is not one of those things the President is allowed to do

 

No one has yet to explain how, when, or why Biden became immune from investigation. If being a political opponent is an automatic grant of immunity, why have boatliads of political opponents been investigating Trump?

P. S. It's a hoax.

 

that has already been debunked

the issue here is Trump trying to use a foreign government to influence an election

 

That's what I said. Hoax.

 

good we agree, Trump was trying to use a foreign government to push a hoax on the American people

 

Presidents do not nor have they ever had the authority to engage a foreign power to assist him in defeating a political opponent.

 

Biden was not a political rival in the summer of 2016

The president’s authority in foreign affairs, as in all areas, is rooted in Article II of the Constitution. The charter grants the officeholder the powers to make treaties and appoint ambassadors with the advice and consent of the Senate (Treaties require approval of two-thirds of senators present. Appointments require consent of a simple majority.)

Presidents also rely on other clauses to support their foreign policy actions, particularly those that bestow “executive power” and the role of “commander in chief of the army and navy” on the office. From this language springs a wide array of associated or “implied” powers. For instance, from the explicit power to appoint and receive ambassadors flows the implicit authority to recognize foreign governments and conduct diplomacy with other countries generally. From the commander-in-chief clause flow powers to use military force and collect foreign intelligence.

 

I'm pretty sure that you are fully aware of my position, and that you are intentionally and laughably distorting my words.

 

No he is not allowed to solicit foreign governments to interfere with our elections.

 

It is amazing what leeway they give Trump.

 

Again, the Ukraine re-opened the investigation several months before the phone call...

Solomon Reports: Ukraine Investigation into Burisma/Biden Was Re-Opened in February 2019…

"Journalist John Solomon dropped a considerably important revelation. According to Solomon’s reporting the White House has open-sourced evidence that Ukraine re-opened their investigation into Burisma Holdings and Hunter Biden in February 2019; several months before President Trump spoke to President Zelenskyy."

So, just re-emphasizing a concern is not illegal in any way, shape or form.


But the real issue that the Dems are so fearful of is the comment about, "Crowdstrike." That is the Pandora's Box of all scandals.

 

So?

What does that have to do with anything?

 

If you are going to be obstinate, don't bother replying.

 

ok. Thanks, but that is not damning evidence.

I have read the transcript twice now and it is not impeachable. The dems are shooting themselves in the foot with yet another witch hunt.

 

the whistle blower was also the WH leaker and Biden's adviser on Ukraine. This is so obviously a political hit job.

 

Well, you posted some wild hypothetical statement which has nothing to do with anything.

 

Probably best to wait for his testimony to be released before drawing conclusions.

 

Not a big fan of Brightbarf, but even if it were true it would only make things worse for Trump trying to get it public.

 

Do you think it is possible?

 

Think you'll find that the aid was withheld until the Whistleblower's report came to the attention of the White House.

 

If the "aid was being withheld" wouldnt Ukraine know about that?

And your vaunted whistleblower was fired for..... leaking.....